Ann: Koppamurra test work results in excellent recoveries, page-2

Not many posting on this thread anymore, different story a year ago when price was $1 higher. Not here to dance the grave or say i told you so, it's bloody hard losing money unless it was easy won in the first place. I will say on this dead thread for the beneift of anyone following, this is an example of why it's important to listen to contrarian opinions and look under the hood of bullish releases and compromised company backed broker reports.

I certainly wasn;t the only one with concerns, but the red flags were obvious put up for all to consider. Not management's fault other than being too optomistic, which is what shareholders pay them to be. Exploration success finding an order of magnutude thicker clay ore zone and maybe winners would be grinners. The lesson is, great money can be made in IPO's and hot stocks but if you want to stay the journey better get you're head around the fundamentals becaause management are never going to ring the bell when it's time to sell. Technical projects can be difficult to understand, which is where listening to others with a better undestanding can be worthwhile. Don;t be afraid to test management with contrarian opinions and consider their explanation carefully (and they always have a slick explanation).

One of my concerns from the get go was high acid consumption due prevalnce of CaCO3 in the area, at low pH required to generate acceptable REO recoveries. Leach liquor acidity levels, acid consumotion and recoveries are a huge part of making ICD's work, so i came back to see what they came up with. The obvious red flag in today's release is that all the good news for different fascets of the recovery tests are spread over different samples. Only two samples from two holes are given to show reducing acid consumption with only small fall in recovery pH 1.5 to 2.



Meanwhile, the meaningful composite sampling over multiple holes are used to show recovery extraction but no mention of acid consumption at all even though that data is avaiable and critical and meaningful?? Then the recovery chart shows extractiosn at pH=1, even though the good news release started with acid consumtpion being better at ph=1.5 to 2. Obviously pH=4 was no good. "similar results at similar conditions" only means each test pH and duration was consistently good or bad, nothing quantitative.


Seems that if acid consumption was low for the geographically diverse and statistically more valid comps they would have said so...

If the recoveries at higher than pH=1 were any good for the comps they would have said so....

It's often what management don;t say sheds as much light on results as what they do. Headlines and blurb are always optimitic even if it's not. I can't possibly be anymore optimistic than management or rampers even if it looked good because that high ground is already taken. The value of a negative opinion on company releases is not that it will make you money obviously, but it just might save you a big loss?

GLTAH